Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libEMF - A library for generating Enhanced Metafiles https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216299 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-11-19 09:21 EST ------- Well, first review of libEMF 1. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines : * Licensing - Include license document(s). * Use rpmlint ------------------------------------------------------ E: libEMF-debuginfo script-without-shebang /usr/src/debug/libEMF-1.0.3/libemf/libemf.h W: libEMF-devel summary-not-capitalized libEMF header files ------------------------------------------------------ - The formar issue is permission problem. Change the permission to 0644. - The latter issue can be ignored, in my opinion. * Timestamps - -devel package includes many header files and keeping timestamps on these files is preferred as it makes clear - when those files are written - whether those files are modified by vendor So please keep timestamps on those files. Under my check, this can be done by using: ------------------------------------------------------- %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT export CPPROG="cp -p" %{__make} install \ DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT ------------------------------------------------------- 2. From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines : (= Okay) 3. Other things I have noticed: * %check Well, this package has tests/ directory and some tests are included, so I think including %check script in the spec is a good idea. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review